Opinion: Muizzju of ‘India Out’ also starts saying ‘India is closest’! Strong economy is the best foreign policy

Author: Somnath Mukherjee
Looking at the ongoing movements on TV screens and social media, it seems that India is under constant geopolitical siege. In Bangladesh, there has been a forced change of government on the street and the pro-India Prime Minister has been removed and Sri Lanka has surprised everyone by electing a leftist President. The border standoff with China continues, although there have been recent signs of some reconciliation. The cherry on the cake is the very public feud with Canada. The rise of new powers has always been a messy affair.

American scholar John Mearsheimer argues, ‘The system is anarchic, great powers have few offensive capabilities, no state can be certain of the intentions of others, survival is the primary goal, and actors are rational.’ Therefore, great powers fear each other and try to increase their security by competing aggressively to maximize their share of power and influence.

The principles are well embedded in the popular consciousness even outside arcane academic theories. In 2014 The New York Times published a cartoon depicting India’s first Mars mission, which showed a dhoti-clad man with a cow knocking on the door of a room called the elite Space Club, where men wearing bow ties Two men were reading a report on the mission. On one level, it was simply a culturally offensive meme. But at a deeper level, it reflects the hostility of the current establishment (the West) towards a rising power.

China’s rise, facilitated by the West since Nixon’s famous visit to Beijing in 1972 (and generally unopposed by the USSR), has been virtually peaceful until recently. But this is an extraordinary exception, never seen before. It is the result of a series of fortunate coincidences in world politics.

Every time an apparently unfriendly government in the neighborhood comes to power, the common refrain is that ‘India has lost the country.’ As if India could have worked harder to retain Sheikh Hasina in power or arrange a peaceful transition to a ‘friendly’ alternative. In the last six years, Maldives ‘lost’ and ‘won’ almost thrice. As Bill Clinton’s campaign said, ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’

It is fashionable to draw comparisons with China’s trade and investment in the subcontinent. Bangladesh is a good example of this. China accounts for more than 20% of the country’s trade, dwarfing India’s 12% share, yet India’s influence is huge. Geographically it’s hard to beat. Bangladesh is dependent on India for essential commodities – food grains, refined petroleum and in recent times electricity. Its famous readymade garment export industry is heavily dependent on India in terms of raw material supply (Bangladesh imports almost all the cotton it needs) and technical-managerial talent. Kolkata is the destination of choice for Bangladeshis looking for advanced medical treatment. This is true for most countries in the subcontinent, except Pakistan.

China could finance a power plant in Nepal, but without a purchase agreement with an Indian distribution company, it is a white elephant. Recently, a minor controversy on social media has led to a sharp decline in the number of Indian tourists to the Maldives – a significant issue for a country where tourism is the primary business. In recent times, Sri Lanka and Maldives have required Indian assistance to deal with serious sovereign debt issues. It is no surprise that within a few months, Muizzu’s slogan of ‘India Out’ has changed to ‘India is our closest ally’.

India’s GDP is 20% of China’s GDP. As a market, China offers 5-10 times the size of India in terms of products and services. India’s current manufacturing architecture – in labor and infrastructure – struggles to match Vietnam’s and is not always the default option for any China +1 initiative. Unlike Russia, India is not a commodity station for the world.

In short, India does not matter as much to the West as it does to shape events at all times. not yet. Meanwhile, pushbacks will become more drastic, as legacy powers with declining growth profiles (plus China) react aggressively toward a newcomer with great power pretensions that does not have all the muscle.

Since the beginning of its economic reforms in 1978, China achieved an average of 9% GDP growth rate for 40 years. The strength of national power is based on resources, we have been slow to collect them. Just as growing relative difference in the subcontinent has made India’s interventions more effective, faster growth will enable it to do the same in other disputed areas. There will be less opposition, less criticism. The only foreign policy that makes sense is rapid economic growth. Everything else will take care of itself.

(The author is CIO, an asset and wealth management firm)